This comes with a "yeah, but..."


Yeah, but I always thought, just from observing my gay friends, that the mystique of being gay was the fact that you were different and the majority was opposed to your union, as if there is a "struggle" to be with who you wanted to be with. Now that the biggest roadblock is no longer there, what now?


"On to the next issue to feed the appetite for drama!"

---

This comes with a "yeah, but..."


Yeah, but I always thought, just from observing my gay friends, that the mystique of being gay was the fact that you were different and the majority was opposed to your union, as if there is a "struggle" to be with who you wanted to be with. Now that the biggest roadblock is no longer there, what now?


"On to the next issue to feed the appetite for drama!"

This makes me sad.


*edit* I may be misunderstanding this.

---

This comes with a "yeah, but..."


Yeah, but I always thought, just from observing my gay friends, that the mystique of being gay was the fact that you were different and the majority was opposed to your union, as if there is a "struggle" to be with who you wanted to be with. Now that the biggest roadblock is no longer there, what now?


"On to the next issue to feed the appetite for drama!"

 

You make it sound like gay people actually WANT to struggle.

---

This makes me sad.


*edit* I may be misunderstanding this.

 

I don't know.  I think you either understood it perfectly, or the guy has no grasp of the English language.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You make it sound like gay people actually WANT to struggle.

For the most part, what I see is that gay couples want the opportunity to be equal. The fact that it took this long does upset me but I'm thrilled that we have moved past this.

---

Good now we need to decriminalize polygamy and prostitution. Government has no role to dictate what kind of union consenting adults wish to enter.

I was waiting for someone to make this argument. Thanks for not disappointing

---

Good ruling, though I'm sure many will disagree.


Though I do find it interesting that ol' Roberts wrote this after the way he ruled on Obamacare:

 

 

Very good point regarding the difference between the two rulings.

 

As far as this ruling, I have mixed feelings.  However, I do agree with Justice Kennedy's statement later on in the initial quote that the OP posted.

 

 

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

 

I'm going to "walk a tightrope" here since I am going to bring up religion with my response, but I'm going to do my best to keep it general in nature.

 

Though I do lean conservative, I do believe in that statement.  I have said on here in the past that I have nothing against unions between people of the same sex.  I do believe that they should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as traditional married couples.

 

As far as calling it a "marriage", my personal belief is that there are two "definitions" of marriage, one being a religious definition and the other being a legal definition.  The religious definition happens to define a union between a man and a woman.  The legal definition now defines it as a union between two people.

 

My fear is that this is going to encroach on other people's liberties.  I'm not talking about religious houses of worship as much, though my fear is that this is going to come into play very soon.  I'm talking about private businesses and even private property.

 

Here is an example of where this is going.  A couple in upstate New York offers their property for birthday and wedding celebrations for a fee.  A lesbian couple wanted to use their property for their wedding.  The owners offered the property for a reception, but would not allow the actual ceremony on their property based on their religious beliefs.  The couple sued, and a court ruled that they were "discriminated" against, so the owners are/were faced with paying some hefty fines.  That, to me is wrong.

 

My bottom line is, I am all for same-sex couples being able to enter a legal/emotional union for legal purposes.  What I am against is private property owners, private business and houses of worship being forced to accommodate these unions.  In my mind, if you are a gay couple and want to do business with someone that rejects you, find another business.  Don't make the law force a business to accommodate you simply on your belief if it goes against the business owner's own beliefs.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

50 states of gay?

---

 

Here is an example of where this is going.  A couple in upstate New York offers their property for birthday and wedding celebrations for a fee.  A lesbian couple wanted to use their property for their wedding.  The owners offered the property for a reception, but would not allow the actual ceremony on their property based on their religious beliefs.  The couple sued, and a court ruled that they were "discriminated" against, so the owners are/were faced with paying some hefty fines.  That, to me is wrong.

 

1960's. African Americans were allowed in the store, but couldn't sit at the adjoined diner upstairs. Argument: It's my store, I do what I want. Court eventually ruled this unconstitutional as they were being "discriminated" against.

 

Was this wrong?

---

1960's. African Americans were allowed in the store, but couldn't sit at the adjoined diner upstairs. Argument: It's my store, I do what I want. Court eventually ruled this unconstitutional as they were being "discriminated" against.

 

Was this wrong?

 

Yes. Next question?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here is an example of where this is going.  A couple in upstate New York offers their property for birthday and wedding celebrations for a fee.  A lesbian couple wanted to use their property for their wedding.  The owners offered the property for a reception, but would not allow the actual ceremony on their property based on their religious beliefs.  The couple sued, and a court ruled that they were "discriminated" against, so the owners are/were faced with paying some hefty fines.  That, to me is wrong.

 

My bottom line is, I am all for same-sex couples being able to enter a legal/emotional union for legal purposes.  What I am against is private property owners, private business and houses of worship being forced to accommodate these unions.  In my mind, if you are a gay couple and want to do business with someone that rejects you, find another business.  Don't make the law force a business to accommodate you simply on your belief if it goes against the business owner's own beliefs.

Interesting little (relevant) tidbit; Freedom of religion means you are free to believe what you want. It doesn't mean you're free to do what you want. That's how polygamy laws were enforced against the Mormons.

---

Yes. Next question?

 

Open blatant discrimination is OK. Whew. Gotcha.

---

1960's. African Americans were allowed in the store, but couldn't sit at the adjoined diner upstairs. Argument: It's my store, I do what I want. Court eventually ruled this unconstitutional as they were being "discriminated" against.

 

Was this wrong?

 

I have two answers for this.

 

First, a private business should have the "right to refuse service" to anyone.  After all, it's a privately owned and operated establishment.  They can make the rules, and if people don't like it, then they can refuse to do business with them.  If their refusal to do business with someone because of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever causes them to lose business and eventually cause their business to fold, then it's their problem.  They should not be forced to do business with anyone under the law.

 

Personally, I disagree with the practice and would never want to see such a thing.  I personally don't discriminate against people because of "what" they are.

 

Now if it's a publicly traded company, then all bets are off.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Interesting little (relevant) tidbit; Freedom of religion means you are free to believe what you want. It doesn't mean you're free to do what you want. That's how polygamy laws were enforced against the Mormons.

 

So if their belief is that homosexual marriage is wrong, then they are free to believe that right?  Can they not believe and practice their belief on their own private property?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

First, a private business should have the "right to refuse service" to anyone.  After all, it's a privately owned and operated establishment.

And people want to talk about marriage between same-sex individuals being a slippery slope by itself, holy crap. Any sort of law defending a practice like this would set the country back 50 years.

 

My only line exists with religious figures. If a certain religion expressly condemns homosexuality, leadership figures within that religion should be allowed to refuse to officiate marriage ceremonies between same-sex individuals. This rule does not apply if the religion itself is ambiguous on the topic but the officiant is opposed to it on a personal level. Religious buildings should still be required to house private ceremonies though, assuming those ceremonies don't conflict with existing commitments (i.e., don't try to book a wedding that conflicts with the weekly Saturday night service and sue when the church asks you to pick another time, but likewise, the church can't suddenly decide to make bingo a five-nights-a-week occasion purely to lock marriages out).

 

I know I'm walking that same tightrope regarding religion here, but I feel that the two issues are very closely linked, and I'm trying to be as vague about it as possible. I'm going to drop the topic after this post, because I'm not really sure there's anything I could say to further clarify my views on it.

---

So if their belief is that homosexual marriage is wrong, then they are free to believe that right?  Can they not believe and practice their belief on their own private property?

 

And there's the rub.

---

First, a private business should have the "right to refuse service" to anyone.  After all, it's a privately owned and operated establishment.  They can make the rules, and if people don't like it, then they can refuse to do business with them.  If their refusal to do business with someone because of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever causes them to lose business and eventually cause their business to fold, then it's their problem.  They should not be forced to do business with anyone under the law.
 

 

This is where we differ, I guess. I'm of the opinion that discrimination of any kind should be a deplorable act under law in the modern United States of America, public, private, whatever. It's a bad way to do business, it's a bad look on our beloved country, and, maybe most influentially, it sets a horrible example for our children. I would think we, as a country, should try to eliminate such a standard.

---

Open blatant discrimination is OK. Whew. Gotcha.

 

Sure, why shouldn't it be?

 

This is where we differ, I guess. I'm of the opinion that discrimination of any kind should be a deplorable act under law in the modern United States of America, public, private, whatever. It's a bad way to do business, it's a bad look on our beloved country, and, maybe most influentially, it sets a horrible example for our children. I would think we, as a country, should try to eliminate such a standard.

 

So, why can't you believe and teach that for yourself without forcing other people to believe like you do? Why can't you freely associate with people who believe as you do while distancing yourself from those who don't? Why must others be coerced to your line of thinking? Because, if nothing else, this decision shows that the government can turn against you and your beliefs in a very short amount of time. What you believe is "right" today may very easily be outlawed tomorrow.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sure, why shouldn't it be?

 

 

So, why can't you believe and teach that for yourself without forcing other people to believe like you do? Why can't you freely associate with people who believe as you do while distancing yourself from those who don't? Why must others be coerced to your line of thinking? Because, if nothing else, this decision shows that the government can turn against you and your beliefs in a very short amount of time. What you believe is "right" today may very easily be outlawed tomorrow.

 

 

I'll say this: I think discrimination is a dangerous, dangerous act that should be avoided by any means necessary. No man or woman should be denied service on the basis of the color of their skin or their sexuality. I'm actually a bit surprised that, in 2015, people actually disagree with this sentiment. Nobody should have the "right" to deny service to anyone, unless we're talking selling weapons to a mentally ill individual. No individual in this country is superior to the other. I think government officials should try to buck such a trend, which they seem to be doing, thankfully.

---

This is where we differ, I guess. I'm of the opinion that discrimination of any kind should be a deplorable act under law in the modern United States of America, public, private, whatever. It's a bad way to do business, it's a bad look on our beloved country, and, maybe most influentially, it sets a horrible example for our children. I would think we, as a country, should try to eliminate such a standard.

 

I agree with you in principle that discrimination of any kind is a deplorable act.  That is my own personal belief.  And I also agree with you that it's a bad way to do business... up to a point.

 

When you are talking about people running a private business that involves their own personal property, then they should have the freedom to chose how they run said business.  If their particular belief is that a certain group, whether it's because of race or sexual orientation is not someone they want to do business with, then they should have the freedom to do so.  What eventually happens to the business would be because of their own doing.  That is what freedom is all about.  Let them live or die as a business based on whatever decisions that they make.

 

A private business should never be forced to accommodate someone regardless of lifestyle, race or whatever.

 

I would ask, what kind of example(s) do we set for our children today?  Does the "average" father wear pants that are too big to where he has to walk around holding them up, and it meanwhile exposes his underwear?  Does that kind of action come from the example that we display to our children?

 

So if I, as a private business owner decided to ban someone dressed like in my above example from entering my business because I feel that it is morally wrong, should I be forced to serve him?  Think about the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.

 

The same thing goes for a private business that might be owned by a deeply religious family.  Should they be forced to go against their beliefs because somebody that they don't agree with wants to do business?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.